FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
APF Welding Pty Ltd v Amplified Contractors Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 991
File number(s): TAD 13 of 2021 Judgment of: MCELWAINE J Date of judgment: 26 August 2022 Catchwords: CONSUMER LAW – sale of business assets – claim for balance of money payable – cross-claim alleging misleading and deceptive conduct as inducing purchaser – misleading representations largely not made out on the evidence or not relied upon – applicant’s claims established saved for return of part of bond money held on trust pursuant to a lease of premises Legislation: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law ss 4, 18, 20, 236, 237 Cases cited: Addenbrooke Pty Ltd v Duncan (No 2) (2017) 348 ALR 1
Australian Financial Services and Leasing Pty Ltd v Hills Industries Ltd (2014) 253 CLR 560; [2014] HCA 14
Bofinger v Kingsway Group Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 269; [2009] HCA 44
Campbell v Backoffice Investments Pty Ltd (2009) 238 CLR 304; [2009] HCA 25
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31
Elna Australia Pty Ltd v International Computers (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) (1987) 16 FCR 410
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallen Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471; [2004] HCA 55
Hancock v Rinehart (2015) 106 ACSR 207; [2015] NSWSC 646
Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Tiller (2020) 282 FCR 530
Henville v Walker (2001) 206 CLR 459; [2001] HCA 52
Julstar Trading Pty Ltd v Hart Trading Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 151
Mann v Paterson Constructions Pty Ltd (2019) 267 CLR 560; [2019] HCA 32
Potts v Miller (1940) 64 CLR 282
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 166 Date of hearing: 14-17 June 2022, 21 June 2022, 3 August 2022 Counsel for the Applicants: Ms C Scott Solicitor for the Applicants: Conmoto Group Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondents: Ms P Sutherland Solicitor for the Respondents: Paula Sutherland & Associates ORDERS
TAD 13 of 2021 BETWEEN: APF WELDING PTY LTD (ACN 082 179 191)
First Applicant
ANDREW FURMINGER
Second Applicant
AND: AMPLIFIED CONTRACTORS PTY LTD (ACN 619 872 472)
First Respondent
ADAM BRAIN (and another named in the Schedule)
Second Respondent
AND BETWEEN: AMPLIFIED CONTRACTORS PTY LTD (ACN 082 179 191) (and others named in the Schedule)
First Cross-Claimant
AND: APF WELDING PTY LTD (ACN 082 179 191) (and another named in the Schedule)
First Cross-Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
MCELWAINE J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 AUGUST 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Furminger Superannuation Pty Ltd must account to Amplified Contractors Pty Ltd in the amount of $28,431.19;
2.The cross-claim is otherwise dismissed;
3.The proceeding is adjourned for further submissions consistent with these reasons as to the form of all further orders including whether judgment should be entered for specified sums in debt plus amounts…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read APF Welding Pty Ltd v Amplified Contractors Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] FCA 991
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court required a thorough examination of the terms of the sale agreement and the conduct of the parties leading up to and during the transaction. It was necessary to ascertain whether APF Welding had breached any consumer protection laws under the Australian Consumer Law by making misleading representations to Amplified Contractors. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate remedy if either party was found to have breached the terms of their agreement.
The court found that while APF Welding's claims for the balance of money payable were substantiated, the cross-claim regarding misleading and deceptive conduct was largely unsubstantiated. The evidence did not support many of the specific allegations made by Amplified Contractors, and it was not demonstrated that these alleged misrepresentations had influenced the decision to purchase. The court, therefore, dismissed the cross-claim. However, it did acknowledge that part of the bond money held on trust for the leased premises was to be returned to Amplified Contractors. The form of further orders, including interest and costs, was adjourned pending further submissions from the parties.
The court's orders included directing Furminger Superannuation Pty Ltd to account to Amplified Contractors Pty Ltd for $28,431.19, dismissing the cross-claim, and adjourning the proceedings to allow for further submissions on the form of all further orders, including the possibility of entering judgment for specified sums in debt, interest, and costs. The precise details of these orders were to be determined based on the additional submissions from the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Furminger Superannuation Pty Ltd must account to Amplified Contractors Pty Ltd in the amount of $28,431.19;
2. The cross-claim is otherwise dismissed;
3. The proceeding is adjourned for further submissions consistent with these reasons as to the form of all further orders including whether judgment should be entered for specified sums in debt plus amounts for interest upon the claim and as to costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.